BREAKING: Parts of healthcare law ruled unconstitutional

[Hayabusa Rider]

So, are you willing to admit that this isn't some affront to citizenry's well being or not? The fact is my statement stands on its own, whether it's in response to that specific scenario or not.

The bill is 2000+ pages of vagaries loaded to allowed "regulations as seen fit" later. I've learned that bureaucracies are just like one-who-shall-remain-nameless, the one who takes the side of regs over life.

No, this is crap.

If you recall I'm not against health care reform, but not this. We need a long term solution to allow better access to service (and I'm not against some government assistance in this regard, but this bill).

We need to understand that everything regarding health care comes down to how well the provider and patient interact. The government could assist, but it tends to do so by making demands in the form of regulations. What's wrong with that? Health care is not something which is so simple. It would be like writing laws on how many breaths a minute you can take.

The argument of "get something through and we'll fix it later"? I'd again suggest looking at medicaid and the lack of real reform. Once the bureaucracy has institutionalized a program it's effectively set in stone, or at least that's how it's been.

That's a real problem, bureaucracy. The federal level is no better than the state. It's inflexible, and that is the enemy of good care.

If the government wants to address individual issues rather than rolling it up all at once, I'd be willing to consider it.

Get some people who know what's going on and have them help design a better system. Obama formed a commission about oil drilling in the Gulf. Is that any more important or complicated than your health? No it's not. Why then isn't it given as much expert attention?

There's no good answer to that.

 

[umbrella39]

Awesome. Can we impeach him for this?

Can we commit you for suggesting it?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I won't disagree that more things, and smarter things, than the bill we got need to be done to actually fix our health care problems. But I have to disagree that this wasn't at least an improvement over the situation before. And if this had not passed it would have been a long time before the issue was addressed again in any meaningful way. And more people would have paid the price with a continuing lack of access to health care in the meantime.

 

[Perknose]

This is simply a judge following the constitution, not rewriting it like the Democrats love to do.

He had inspiration to rule as he did, but it didn't come from the constitution.

This hack should have recused himself, but didn't:

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!

As the Huffington Post and others first noted last July, Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).




Campaign Solutions was instrumental in the launching of Sarah Palin's PAC (though Palin has since split with the firm), and Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who filed the lawsuit that Hudson ruled in favor of today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered in 2009 and 2010.


Anyway, if you're curious why Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, ruled that health care reform's individual coverage mandate violates the constitution, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he as a major shareholder in a political messaging firm that gets paid to argue that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional. It's really just that he's a Republican.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, just following the laws voted for by the people's democratically elected representatives works fine for me. We are a nation of laws, if that's a problem for you, move.

Just following orders, and if that means letting someone die for nothing more than regulations, that is what should happen.

Please don't complain about Bush, or corporations, or insurance companies ever again. You've eclipsed them by embracing authoritarian evil.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yep, Hudson is the worst kind of partisan hack, one that uses his position as a judge to further his political agenda. Should be removed from the bench IMO. And I'm not surprised at all that he's a GWB appointee, skunks begat skunks

 

[umbrella39]

This is simply a judge following the constitution, not rewriting it like the Democrats love to do.

If you honestly think that THIS judge in particular does not have an agenda here then you lost any shred of objectivity you might have had left. This has NOTHING to do with the democrats or rewriting the constitution is a good place to start looking for hints.

 

[rudeguy]

He had inspiration to rule as he did, but it didn't come from the constitution.

This hack should have recused himself, but didn't:

oh wow

That is 100% bullshit.

Now what?

 

[bfdd]

In 2 other cases Federal judges said it was ok.


Two other federal judges have ruled that the law passes constitutional muster. No judge has ruled the law unconstitutional. Many observers think Hudson will be the first.

That prediction is built partly on Hudson's roots in Republican politics. He was elected Arlington's commonwealth attorney as a Republican, briefly ran against U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) in 1991 and has received all of his appointments - as U.S. attorney, as a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge in 1998 and to the federal bench in 2002 - from Republicans.

The it's ok to the government to force me to buy things? Then they have the authority to tell me to do anything and we no longer have freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. I mean if they can tell you to buy health insurance they can tell you to buy NY Times and only NY Times. Only a fucking moron would think this is constitutional and these judges should be locked up for trying to condemn us all to that bullshit as well. We are a FREE people, the government has no place to tell us what we spend our money on nor can they force us to spend our money on anything.

 

[dmcowen674]

Knew this was coming towards U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Pretty much what they decide is the way things go.

So the Jury is certainly still out until the U.S.S.C gets around to ruling on ObamaCare.

 

[sactoking]

Well since you brought it up, surely you can provide me with the internal revenue code that explicitly states that then, right? That a benefit one can't take advantage of is somehow not, for all practical purposes, a penalty?

Take a look at US Code Title 26 Subtitle A Chapter 1 Subchapter B Part VI Section 163(h)(3). The word "penalty" does not appear anywhere in the law pertaining to the mortgage interest deduction.

 

[fskimospy]

The it's ok to the government to force me to buy things? Then they have the authority to tell me to do anything and we no longer have freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. I mean if they can tell you to buy health insurance they can tell you to buy NY Times and only NY Times. Only a fucking moron would think this is constitutional and these judges should be locked up for trying to condemn us all to that bullshit as well. We are a FREE people, the government has no place to tell us what we spend our money on nor can they force us to spend our money on anything.

Uhmm, governments have been forcing people to spend money on things from the first moment government was invented. Attempting to say that people must buy health insurance leads to the destruction of the first amendment requires such an incredible leap of either insanity or stupidity that I don't even know what to make fun of first.

I also hope you noticed the irony in your desire to imprison judges for making decisions you disagreed with all while talking about how freedom was under attack. If you think only 'fucking morons' think this is constitutional, then the majority of legal experts in the United States are 'fucking morons' to you. Something tells me that if you actually tried to discuss this topic with those 'fucking morons', they would embarrass you.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Take a look at US Code Title 26 Subtitle A Chapter 1 Subchapter B Part VI Section 163(h)(3). The word "penalty" does not appear anywhere in the law pertaining to the mortgage interest deduction.

So it doesn't say it's not a penalty for those who can't claim it. Thanks.

 

[sactoking]

So it doesn't say it's not a penalty for those who can't claim it. Thanks.

W
T
F
?

Dude, are you shooting for "Troll of the Year" on this, are you too ashamed to admit you're wrong, or is this all just a big joke that is going over my head?

How in the world can you interpret a law that says "This is a deduction" as a penalty just because it doesn't say "Oh, by the way, this law is a deduction and is not a penalty"?

Aside from the fact that since penalties are clearly defined in the tax code (which means that anything not labeled a penalty is not a penalty) such bass-ackwards logic would mean that if I buy an ice cream cone I've just administered a "No Ice-cream Cone" penalty on the rest of the planet because I didn't buy them one.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

The entire law is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is power ascribed to the Federal Government to enforce such a sweeping law. If anything, each state should pass its own healthcare bill and enforce it. Pretty much anything enforced by the Fed ends up becoming a bureaucratic piece of shit anyway.

The thing that really makes no sense to me is why anyone would ever think this is a good idea. People keep comparing the U.S. government to individual European governments, which is lunacy. It would make more sense to compare the U.S. government to a truly united Europe, and try enforcing universal health care over such an area. It would be essentially the same thing. Universal Health Care works in Europe for the most part because it is enforced by individual, small nations much like our states.

This is why we have states in the first place! Everyone forgets what "The United States of America" means; the whole idea is that one government has power over, but does not stifle a bunch of smaller governments. Unfortunately, in the time after WW2, the federal gov. has grown to become such an enormous beast that it smothers any action by the states, and it will eventually collapse under its own weight and inability to control itself.

/rant

 

[werepossum]

The bill is 2000+ pages of vagaries loaded to allowed "regulations as seen fit" later. I've learned that bureaucracies are just like one-who-shall-remain-nameless, the one who takes the side of regs over life.

No, this is crap.

If you recall I'm not against health care reform, but not this. We need a long term solution to allow better access to service (and I'm not against some government assistance in this regard, but this bill).

We need to understand that everything regarding health care comes down to how well the provider and patient interact. The government could assist, but it tends to do so by making demands in the form of regulations. What's wrong with that? Health care is not something which is so simple. It would be like writing laws on how many breaths a minute you can take.

The argument of "get something through and we'll fix it later"? I'd again suggest looking at medicaid and the lack of real reform. Once the bureaucracy has institutionalized a program it's effectively set in stone, or at least that's how it's been.

That's a real problem, bureaucracy. The federal level is no better than the state. It's inflexible, and that is the enemy of good care.

If the government wants to address individual issues rather than rolling it up all at once, I'd be willing to consider it.

Get some people who know what's going on and have them help design a better system. Obama formed a commission about oil drilling in the Gulf. Is that any more important or complicated than your health? No it's not. Why then isn't it given as much expert attention?

There's no good answer to that.

Agreed, and well put. I seriously doubt though that SCOTUS is going to rule as unconstitutional anything that empowers the federal government to this extent. This is beans compared to Kelo v. New London.

W
T
F
?

Dude, are you shooting for "Troll of the Year" on this, are you too ashamed to admit you're wrong, or is this all just a big joke that is going over my head?

How in the world can you interpret a law that says "This is a deduction" as a penalty just because it doesn't say "Oh, by the way, this law is a deduction and is not a penalty"?

Aside from the fact that since penalties are clearly defined in the tax code (which means that anything not labeled a penalty is not a penalty) such bass-ackwards logic would mean that if I buy an ice cream cone I've just administered a "No Ice-cream Cone" penalty on the rest of the planet because I didn't buy them one.

LOL +1 Same with taxes - all we hear from liberals is that if government takes less (or even just doesn't take more) from you, then they've given you a gift. By that same argument a thug may have robbed one person of $100, but since he gave the other seven billion of us a gift (by not robbing us) he must really be a hell of a guy.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

W
T
F
?

Dude, are you shooting for "Troll of the Year" on this, are you too ashamed to admit you're wrong, or is this all just a big joke that is going over my head?

How in the world can you interpret a law that says "This is a deduction" as a penalty just because it doesn't say "Oh, by the way, this law is a deduction and is not a penalty"?

Aside from the fact that since penalties are clearly defined in the tax code (which means that anything not labeled a penalty is not a penalty) such bass-ackwards logic would mean that if I buy an ice cream cone I've just administered a "No Ice-cream Cone" penalty on the rest of the planet because I didn't buy them one.

If you're denied a deduction given to others, the reality is you are being PENALIZED. One coin, two sides. It's that damn simple.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you think only 'fucking morons' think this is constitutional, then the majority of legal experts in the United States are 'fucking morons' to you.

I'd like to see the expansive survey you refer to. I'm sure there's thousands at least which make a "majority".

Link?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Agreed, and well put. I seriously doubt though that SCOTUS is going to rule as unconstitutional anything that empowers the federal government to this extent. This is beans compared to Kelo v. New London.


LOL +1 Same with taxes - all we hear from liberals is that if government takes less (or even just doesn't take more) from you, then they've given you a gift. By that same argument a thug may have robbed one person of $100, but since he gave the other seven billion of us a gift (by not robbing us) he must really be a hell of a guy.

You know, if you could find a single person in this country that doesn't benefit from any of the myriad of things government spends tax money on, you'd have a point.

 

[werepossum]

You know, if you could find a single person in this country that doesn't benefit from any of the myriad of things government spends tax money on, you'd have a point.

This is also known as the "I may be a mugger, but I keep the junkies off your block" defense. In more simple terms - doing something for you with part of the money taken does NOT mean a failure to take more is a gift.

 

[theeedude]

Just following orders, and if that means letting someone die for nothing more than regulations, that is what should happen.

Please don't complain about Bush, or corporations, or insurance companies ever again. You've eclipsed them by embracing authoritarian evil.

Laws passed by democratically elected representatives of the American people are authoritarian evil? Whatever you say, buddy.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This is also known as the "I may be a mugger, but I keep the junkies off your block" defense. In more simple terms - doing something for you with part of the money taken does NOT mean a failure to take more is a gift.

How about the more rational "taxes pay for cops that keep both muggers and junkies off your block" argument? But since that one is actually rational it's probably asking too much of you.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Why? It was Congress that created the bill, doctored it up and rammed it down our throats.

I believe it was actually written by the insurance companies, drug companies, and and lobbying institutions.

Congress probably had very little to do with the actual writing of the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Laws passed by democratically elected representatives of the American people are authoritarian evil? Whatever you say, buddy.

When they cause injury or death because of poorly written regulations, yes.

Given a choice to save a life or follow a rule you would endorse letting the person die. That's an evil choice, yet you complain about people not receiving care. Why? Because only the government has the right to expect people to die because of technicalities.

Pretty fuck up dude.

 

[Lanyap]

Awesome. Can we impeach him for this?

No, but it's time to send in the special intern, Monique.